Nature as GOD

[Moontanman]

Yes.

 

I see no god at all, just a wonderfully complex and vast universe waiting to be explored by humanity.

[Moontanman]

Your path has no heart to me it is only an escape from your own irreconcilable fears.

 

I feel for you T-Bird, I can't imagine not being able to see beyond the horizon of my own mortality. "the Earth is the cradle of mankind but a baby cannot live in it's cradle forever" author of quote is unknown to me but it makes a lot of sense, BTW T-Bird quit trying to analyze me, you might think every one is that simple but I am not one of your lost boys.

[InfiniteNow]

Would a STAFF member please be so kind as to sweep the **** off of the proverbial carpet which is this thread, and split posts 222 to 255 into their own thread?

 

 

Thanks.

[freeztar]

Unfortunately most of the average public believe this tripe. Just like you Clay.

 

First of all, I wouldn't consider C1ay one of the "average public".

 

If the science is unfinished so is the knowledge and therefore even the scientist themselves are in the dark. The nature of scientific experiments make it impossible for them to be thouroughly completed!

 

You could say the same thing about god. It's impossible for us to ever be 100% sure about the existence of god. The nature of theological experiments make it impossible for them to be thoroughly completed.

 

The difference with science is that it makes testable predictions. You can not do this with belief in god.

[ughaibu]

The difference with science is that it makes testable predictions. You can not do this with belief in god.

I dont think this is true. If you accept my essential features of any relevant god:

I reckon there are three essential components in any god concept,

1) gods are assumed to control, but are distinct from, one or more natural phenomena

2) gods are assumed to have mainly autonomous volition

3) gods are assumed to be influenceable or controllable by humans.

By number 3 god should be testable, using the question 'does prayer work?'. Fortunately we can save ourselves the trouble, as the experiment has been running for thousands of years, due to the persistence of millions of volunteers. The result seems to be quite clear, either god doesn't exist or, if it does, it's irrelevant.

[Overdog]

Originally Posted by ughaibu

I reckon there are three essential components in any god concept,

1) gods are assumed to control, but are distinct from, one or more natural phenomena

2) gods are assumed to have mainly autonomous volition

3) gods are assumed to be influenceable or controllable by humans.

 

I think the first three words of each of your components are sufficient to explain the concept.

 

"Gods are Assumed"

[freeztar]

I dont think this is true. If you accept my essential features of any relevant god:By number 3 god should be testable, using the question 'does prayer work?'. Fortunately we can save ourselves the trouble, as the experiment has been running for thousands of years, due to the persistence of millions of volunteers. The result seems to be quite clear, either god doesn't exist or, if it does, it's irrelevant.

 

I think we're on the same page. The problem with testing prayer is that it doesn't work like a causality experiment (this is what believers will tell you). So to a scientist, yes you can ask someone to pray for something and see if they recieve it or not. They recieve it, prayer works, they don't, it doesn't work. But to a believer, prayers being answered is at the whim of god. It can always be explained away.

[Mike C]

How about locusts, or red tides? The only reason you don't see animals destroying their environments is because you choose not to see. I can show you the light but you have to open your eyes.

 

There are a lot of such happenings in Nature.

The Creator GOD herself has created the carnivores, diseases, poison plants,

the food chain in the oceans and seas to prevent anyone specie from exploding in numbers and possibly other such controls.

 

Mike C

[ughaibu]

to prevent anyone specie from exploding in numbers

There's a rather obvious counter example to this.

[Mike C]

There's a rather obvious counter example to this.

 

You mean the 'people bombs' that the OT promotes with the Islamic religion as an example?

 

Mike C

[freeztar]

You mean the 'people bombs' that the OT promotes with the Islamic religion as an example?

 

Mike C

 

Nope, try again.

[InfiniteNow]

Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal.

 

~Steven Weinberg, Nobel-prize winning physicist in Dreams of a Final Theory

[Southtown]

There's a rather obvious counter example to this.

You mean the 'people bombs' that the OT promotes with the Islamic religion as an example?

Mike C

Um, natural selection?

[InfiniteNow]

Grab a beer and pop some corn. It's worth the watch.

 

 

Richard Dawkins Public Lecture - Liverpool 08 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7023586193707783714&q=dawkins+liverpool&ei=B9ReSJ_XGJD6qQPqrPDoCw